Just a quick little note to all my friends, and to Tom too. Hope this is a great memorial day for everyone, and that it is safe too.
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY everyone!
God Bless our Troops
God Bless America
Just a quick little note to all my friends, and to Tom too. Hope this is a great memorial day for everyone, and that it is safe too.
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY everyone!
God Bless our Troops
God Bless America
Miss USA was crowned yesterday. And the liberal world is going nuts over it. Because she is not only a very beautiful woman, but she is accomplished too.
She works for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a scientist. So for liberals….she has brains that goes against what they feel is a perfect woman. The other thing that will be making them go bonkers in the brain is the fact that this very smart beauty, is a conservative.
Her remarks after winning the crown sent many into a frothing tizzy as they went to twitter commenting things like,
MissUSA Miss DC just lost me with that answer….Affordable healthcare is a privilege? Girl bye,” tweeted a user named @dazella_may. May I say here, to dazella may of twitter, healthcare IS a privilege girl. So bye to you, as you have no clue about what you profess to know. And another tweet:
“DC just disqualified herself with that answer #MissUSA,” a user named Keeni Rodgers piled.<font color="blue" The same can be said about this moron.
What Kara McCullough said that caused this firestorm was that women, in the work place are just as equal as men are. And that as a “government employee, I’m granted healthcare and I see firsthand that for one to have health care you need to have jobs.” Health care is not a right, it is a privilege.
When she was asked if access to medical care was a right as liberals such as Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think, she said she thought it was a privilege, which by the way it is. She is right there.
The government is wrong. And so are so many liberals out here who think that having healthcare is a right. It is not folks. It is a privilege and she is right that jobs is where most people got their healthcare. So in that vein of thinking, getting jobs is the most important thing. But, being a conservative, I have to throw out another one that will piss off most liberals. Having a job is not a right either. Miss McCullough was asked Later in the competition to explain what they consider feminism to be and whether they consider themselves feminists.
Miss District of Columbia replied that she likes to “transpose” the word feminism to “equalism.”
“I don’t want to call myself a feminist,” McCullough said. “Women, we are just as equal as men, especially in the workplace.”
McCullough, who graduated with a chemistry degree from South Carolina State University, said after the contest: “I believe we’ve come a long way and there is more work to be done. I think domestically we are making progress and I do believe that we will become equal one day.”
That in a nutshell makes the new Miss USA at odds with liberals. She believes that women are equal in the workplace. I believe they are too, but the snowflakes out there who do not believe they are, are not because they do not want to work for the equalness of it. They just want it handed to them for no reason other than they are women or young. That is not the way life works folks.
That is just not how life works. Work is a privilege. Health care is a privilege. Until we realize this, the problems we are having in this world will continue because Miss USA told us what is happening……and most liberal democrats will not agree. Like dazella may and keeni rogers who tweeted for the world to see their ignorance of what they are professing to know.
The sad part of all this is folks, the truth doesn’t seem to be what you aspire to anymore. Because it is too hard. Snowflakes can’t do hard…….just saying.
God Bless America
God Bless our Troops
God Bless Our President
Let’s first consider the First Amendment of the Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Let us further consider a quote from the noted French philosopher François-Marie Arouet (also known as Voltaire):
“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Over the past few months, we have witnessed the greatest opposition to the freedom of Americans to speak their minds that I can remember. Vocal and violent protests to conservative speakers on college campuses only demonstrates the fear that the Progressive Left has for the rational and confrontational opposition to their point of view.
The fact that college and university campuses have “safe spaces” for their sensitive snowflake social justice warriors is a far cry from the purpose of higher level education to turn out well rounded, well-educated graduates. Indeed, they are turning out mental and emotional cripples incapable of listening to and evaluating different points of view. This trend of graduating emotionally mental midgets can be blamed directly upon the staff and administration of these colleges and universities, and indirectly, are violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” applies to any college or university accepting Federal funding. As Congress approves funding for education (including colleges and universities) and cannot by law restrict speech, colleges and universities, by extension, cannot oppose the expression of ideas that may not be inline with their staff or administration viewpoints. Accepting funding from a government source implies that that entity is now an agent of the government, and must accept the same responsibilities and restrictions that the government has. (I know that businesses that accept government contracts/funding must conform to governmental regulations, and I see no reason for colleges and universities to be treated any differently. My Google-fu is weak today, but I am aware of cases that were successful in proving that if government funding is present, then that person or entity receiving the funds could be considered acting on the behalf of the government, i.e., as an agent of the government.)
The Progressive Left has encouraged protests against hate speech, racist speech, anti-Islamic speech, anti-LGBT speech, anti-XYZ speech, etc. Almost any speech is anti-something and must be protested against (although I have yet to see any of these same groups protest against speech that defames the Christian belief). And yet, who determines what is offensive? Therein lies the slippery slope that we, as a society and country, have been sliding headlong into – the political correctness trap. From a 2013 post:
Here’s the problem with political correctness – the standard of what is politically correct is subject to what someone finds objectionable to their race, religion, and/or belief system. In other words, there are no absolute standards or limits to what these people would find objectionable. Where this could eventually lead is a suppression of our ability to voice our opinions for fear of being publically attacked, and potentially charged with a hate crime. Freedom of speech now becomes a casualty of “political correctness” and “hate crime” laws.
Dr. Ben Carson stated it best in his now famous speech at the National Prayer Breakfast:
“And one last thing about political correctness, which I think is a horrible thing, by the way. I’m very, very come — compassionate, and I’m not never out to offend anyone. But PC is dangerous. Because, you see, this country one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression. and it muffles people. It puts a muzzle on them. And at the same time, keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed. And we cannot fall for that trick. And what we need to do is start talking about things, talking about things that are important.”
The First Amendment does not define what is or is not hate speech, nor should Congress define it as well with the laws it passes. However, Congress has passed laws defining certain crimes singled out as being “hate crimes” when in fact all crime is hateful against society – the circumstances behind that crime may be heinous, but should be dealt with within the criminal code without regard to whether the victim or criminal is black, white, straight, gay, etc. That by itself is discriminatory.
However, if one were to listen to former Democratic Chairman and Presidential Candidate Howard Dean –
“Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.” – Tweet from Howard Dean
– It becomes clear that certain people do not understand the Constitution and the principles that this country was founded upon. For instance, if all hate speech (and by extension, hateful thoughts) were banned, think about the following groups and activities that would be outlawed and banned because someone, somewhere would be offended by their opinions and activities:
- The KKK
- Black Lives Matter
- Blue Lives Matter
- All Lives Matter
- All Christian Churches and denominations
- All Muslim mosques and denominations
- All other religions and denominations
- Everyone with skin color (or lack thereof)
- Everyone that is of Asian, African, European, etc. descent.
- Everyone who is a different sexual orientation than themselves
- Everyone who hates (or likes) cats
- Everyone who likes (or hates) dogs
- Everyone who hates (or likes) animals
- Everyone who hates eating liver, asparagus, cauliflower, etc.
- Everyone who likes bacon
- Whoever doesn’t believe (or does) believe that Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is real and settled science
- Put your favorite hate group / thought here…
A bit ridiculous, right? And that is exactly the point!!
Limiting the ideas and opinions that people can express demeans us all, and limits our individual ability to grow as a person. Yes, we do reserve the right to agree or disagree with the opinions expressed (and even to walk out & not listen to the speaker), but we do not have the right to prevent them from speaking or assault the person for expressing themselves. Yet, this is exactly what happened to conservative speakers that were engaged to speak at college campuses in California.
The excuses given have been that the speakers “trigger” violent activities, promotes hate speech, is a racist, and a host of other charges. But when it really gets down to it, it is not the speakers that are the problem, but the protestors. By inhibiting the free speech that the protestors supposedly support, the protestors have revealed themselves not only as being hypocrites, but as being more intolerant than they have accused the speakers to be.
More is the pity…
Professor Glenn Reynolds had this in an opinion piece in USA Today:
In First Amendment law, the term “hate speech” is meaningless. All speech is equally protected whether it’s hateful or cheerful. It doesn’t matter if it’s racist, sexist or in poor taste, unless speech falls into a few very narrow categories — like “true threats,” which have to address a specific individual, or “incitement,” which must constitute an immediate and intentional encouragement to imminent lawless action — it’s protected.
The term “hate speech” was invented by people who don’t like that freedom, and who want to give the — completely false — impression that there’s a kind of speech that the First Amendment doesn’t protect because it’s hateful. What they mean by “hateful,” it seems, is really just that it’s speech they don’t agree with. Some even try to argue that since hearing disagreeable ideas is unpleasant, expressing those ideas is somehow an act of “violence.”
There are two problems with that argument. The first is that it’s idiotic: That’s never been the law, nor could it be if we give any value to free expression, because there’s no idea that somebody doesn’t disagree with. The second is that the argument is usually made by people who spend a lot of time expressing disagreeable ideas themselves, without, apparently, the least thought that if their own rules about disagreeable speech held sway, they’d probably be locked up first. (As Twitter wag IowaHawk has offered: “I’ll let you ban hate speech when you let me define it. Deal?”)
We have the First Amendment for a reason – for the freedom of expression, whether by our acts of Faith or speech, to disseminate those thoughts by talk or print, and to openly assemble to give a speech to voice those opinions, whether they are critical of the government or not. For thugs to protest this right of others to speak while keeping it only for themselves shows that they, not the speakers, are the real Fascists.
Watching the WAH! Party* (formerly the Democratic Party) over the past few weeks has led me to the conclusion that these people are under the delusion that they believe that they should be the only political party in the United States. The amount of arrogance of these people in their quest for political power is almost unbelievable in its scope as it is in the levels of duplicity and deceit. For example:
WAH! Party member Senator Schumer believes that precedence should only be to his Party’s advantage and no others. He is demanding that his fellow Party members filibuster, obstruct, and vote against one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees I have seen in some time. He is also demanding that 60 votes are required to approve the appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch. My response would be this:
Senator Schumer, I dare you and your fellow WAH! Party members mount a real filibuster and get up in front of the American people & speak as to why this most qualified person should not be elevated to the highest court of the land. I want you to explain plainly the reasons for your obstructionism to the due process and precedence that you yourself championed when your power held both Houses of Congress and the White House. Last, acknowledge that 60 votes are not needed for consent as two current Justices (Justice Alito with 58 votes, Justice Thomas with 52) were approved with less than the 60 votes you state are necessary. After exposing yourself and your party as being crying, whining children, please remove yourselves to your designated safe space and let the adults vote.
And to Senator McConnell – enough with the tap-dancing. Change or amend the rules to approve the nomination and move on with the other business of the Senate. The WAH! Party has not proven that they will play fair or keep their word in the past, and there is no reason to believe that they will now. To accentuate this last point, the rant of the newly elected WAH! Party Chair Tom Perez against your party and the President is telling.
The flap about Russian hacking into the election and supposed collusion with then Candidate Trump’s campaign is another issue. To those accusers – produce and release hard evidence with source references now to the American People via all news agencies. In you cannot, then STHU because you are no longer relevant. This crap with unsubstantiated accusations is not productive, especially since the former Democratic Presidential nominee has been shown to have violated multiple Federal laws and has not been prosecuted (yet?), and has made multiple deals with the Russians for personal gain.
Last, the ruckus over illegal aliens and sanctuary cities is absolutely insane. WAH! Party controlled cities are declaring that the rights of illegal aliens (lawbreakers) supersede those of legal citizens. The Mayors who declare such nonsense are breaking their oaths (and multiple Federal laws) to the people that elected them in the first place, and putting their citizens in danger (see New DHS Report Reveals Sanctuary Cities Are Releasing Violent Criminal Aliens by Leah Barkouskis).
To the Republicans – the WAH! Party has declared war upon you and the American People that elected you to represent them. What is your response?
* WAH! Party stands for Whiners And Hypocrites, of which the Democratic Party has become.
This past week, the Republicans found that talk was cheap compared to the actions that they needed to take to repeal and replace the monstrosity known as ObamaCare. The solution that they came up with fell far short of what was expected of them.
One would think that it would be easy to simply repeal the existing law and set everything back to the way it was before the Democrats inflicted this POS legislation upon the American people. But it’s not that easy.
The problem is that ObamaCare has become an entitlement that some people depend upon at the expense of hurting far more people. The result is a program that is failing (it was designed to, by the way) – insurance companies fleeing the exchanges with those that remain charging higher and higher premiums with deductibles that people ultimately cannot afford.
The bad news is that the Republican’s replacement to ObamaCare failed to get the necessary votes in the House to pass the Bill to the Senate where, in my opinion, it would have been shot down in flames with all its flaws exposed. The worse news is that ObamaCare is still law, and it is going downhill fast.
The bigger question is who’s going to be hurt most by this failure. I will guarantee that it won’t be the insurance companies or the politicians – the insurance companies have been playing both sides where they would come out winners (remember the section in ObamaCare that guarantees for the Government to cover any losses by the insurance companies?), and the politicians have their own health plan (they quietly repealed the section of the ObamaCare law that mandated that they would be on the same plan as the rest of us). So once again, the American taxpayer will bear the costs of this insanity.
I found a commentator by the name of Dan Carlin who takes a neutral political view of the situations in the world. His take on health care finances, the healthcare industry, and the politics behind it are eye-opening and interesting. While I do not agree with everything he says, he does make a compelling case for an alternative healthcare system in his latest audio “Common Sense 314 – Unhealthy Numbers.” His show notes point to a resource that has graphs that show that our healthcare system is sick, and probably headed for financial collapse. For example:
To sum up the audio and the show notes, Americans spend the highest amount for healthcare insurance and health care, but receive lower benefits from that health care. Where does that help anyone in the long term?
Regardless, the passage of ObamaCare was to force the health care insurance industry into a single payer system – the government – with the health insurers as their surrogates. The end result is that the American taxpayer would pay not only for the program in taxes, but fees to the insurance companies in amounts greater than if the politicians had stayed out of it.
The solution, in my opinion, is to 1) repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) in it’s entirety, 2) provide a financial safety net for those who have paid voluntarily into an optional program that would not be used for any other purpose except health care (something that Social Security was originally set up to be), 3) enact laws that will allow insurance companies to compete across state lines with the usual protections against price fixing/gouging and monopolies, 4) establish tax-free health savings accounts similar to Roth IRAs, and 5) remove any governmental management of health care from the private sector (we all can see how well government management works in the healthcare industry with the Veteran’s Administration).
I’m sure there are other ideas on this subject, but I already know that the politicians are ill equipped to handle any financial decisions. Otherwise, how in the Hell could our country be trillions of dollars in debt, and needing loans from other countries to keep afloat?
Do the Republicans have a fricking political death wish?
This past week, the Republicans have put forth their initial proposed replacement (not repeal) of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) titled the American Health Care Act, or AHCA. The critics have called the AHCA a number of names including ObamaCare Lite and ObamaCare 2.0. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) stated:
“It’s a stinking pile of garbage. …It’s not a Republican, conservative bill. …One thing that I’ve maintained is that this bill was written with the help of the insurance companies, just like Obamacare. That’s why it looks so similar.“
From the articles that I’ve read so far, the AHCA is a tweak to the existing law, keeping the popular parts, dumping the unpopular parts (mostly), but keeping the government firmly in charge. And by the way, it appears that you would be required to buy insurance by law.
A far cry from the “repeal and replace” campaign promises of the Republican Party. One begins to wonder why, and that brings back something that I wrote over a decade ago:
In case any of you didn’t know, a typical politician’s primary job is not to serve the people who elected him. His primary job is to get himself (or herself) elected or re-elected. Second is to reward all those contributors that gave $$ to help him get elected. Third is to get as many perks & benefits as he can while he is in office. Last on the list is the common person like you & I.
And here we go again – that vicious circle where We The People vote professional politicians into office based on their promises only to get screwed again. To continue with the same post:
What happens is that anything that the politician has promised, said they would do, or otherwise look into during the campaign is promptly forgotten, and we, as the stupid idiots that we are, forget right along with them. That is, until the next time re-election comes up… Then it’s the “other party’s” fault for putting up roadblocks, vetoes, filibusters, yadda, yadda, yadda as to why they couldn’t fulfill their promises.
Does this dance routine sound familiar? But the voters have woken up, and if the Republicans continue the politics as usual routine, they could find themselves in the same condition as the Democratic Party, and We The People might just find ourselves with a vengeful Democratic Congress back in power.
Here’s the problem – government entitlements like ObamaCare are rarely (never) repealed in their entirety. There are certain groups that depend on the entitlements, and they are usually 1) very vocal about their support, 2) the Media makes it their “human interest story” about the government abusing their power (!) by taking away their civil rights (!!) to such a program, and 3) the Media putting the politicians trying to curb the entitlement through the 9th circle of Hell for even thinking to reduce government entitlements.
I’ve read somewhere that politicians, as a whole, are some of the most risk adverse people on the planet. And it’s true – they will go to almost any length to avoid controversy that they cannot control or benefit from. This is exactly what is happening here. They want to keep the entitlements for the minority while trying to appease the majority with legal smoke and mirrors – a difficult balancing act that isn’t going to go too far with an awake electorate.
Arthur Schaper at Townhall.com has an interesting take on what should be done:
…repeal the whole damn Obamacare monstrosity, and let the free market make us healthy…
Don’t just repeal Obamacare, but repeal all the stupid rules pushed by government and corporate interests to enrich themselves while impoverishing everyone else. And about more policy-oriented discussions …
Let’s repeal the nasty notion that health care is a “right” which the government must provide. It’s not working in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Sweden. Bernie Sanders is a spoiled regressive from Vermont. He should try getting health care in Canada, where he can pull a number of hope that he wins a locale’s once-a-month lottery to see a family doctor. The animals get better care than human beings.
Don’t just repeal the Obamacare monster. Remove all the decades-old layers of government regulation. During World War II, FDR imposed age controls, so employers offered health insurance to compete for jobs. Now Americans expect third parties (including the government) to bear the burden)
Arbitrary caps on medical students, guild-system quotas on medical professionals, and arbitrary licensure laws are not helping. The government that wants to keep us healthy is making us sicker.
When Medicare arrived, more people ended up spending other people’s money for less healthcare.
Get rid of it.
The tort-lawyer lobby is kicking taxpayers’ butts. Time to discourage punitive damage awards? Restore the Common Law provisions which forced lawsuit losers to pay back the winning party’s attorney’s fees?
Sounds like a winner to me. Hope the Republicans are listening…